How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
why ?
Oh, I very much do. But I also know a thing or two about human nature and how science is actually done in practice.
On principle, yes.
And there is usually a way to contextualize such findings in a way that doesn't threaten your theory.
You really need to stop assuming you know who my "favorite god" is.
In that case, I would first ask why would we need to prove such a thing one way or another?
That depends entirely on your goals and values.
I don't preach that, so I don't have such problems.
That's your projection that this is what they do.
Projection is a psychological defense mechanism.
Also, some atheists do manifest a strong unwillingness to ask uncomfortable questions - especially when those questions are about their own intentions, their goals in discussing the topic of "God". This can be seen here at the forums often enough.
Gustav succintly pointed out some aspects of why the FSM analogy is inadequate.
Humans do strive for God-like qualities (not angry-Christian-God-like) - and the FSM characteristically omits that, while traditional theistic religions focus on them.
Beauty, fame, power, wisdom, riches and being above-the-fray are core qualities ascribed to God in traditional theistic religions, they are also qualities that humans find extremely attractive.
The FSM has none of them.
(And I hope you all know that pasta is usually made out of semolina, not ordinary flour.)
I don't think one can rationally assert that - it is an untestable assertion.
I am more interested in investigating why people fight over whether someone knows the truth about God or not. Also, in why some say that "nobody knows the truth about God" and similar untestabel assertions.
You're arguing from a truism. That doesn't prove anything.
Why would one have to prove or disprove God?
And this is what makes all the difference.
Practice trumps principle 100%.
As we are already discussing - they were trying to override the separation of State and religion.
On a more subtle note - they also attempted to take upon themselves the whole responsibility for inclining people toward God, ie. they left God out.
They didn't trust that if God wants people to believe in Him, He will see to it that they will. Instead, they presented belief in God as a unilateral effort on the part of humans.
Christianity has gone through schisms over this issue of how it is that a person comes to believe in God, so even for Christians, the matter is far from settled. So it's no wonder they can't present a unified front to secular society, and thus also can't achieve much.
Projection ...
You are talking about what you would do if you were in their position.
Unless you wish to claim you can read minds?
As above.
Have been doing that all along.
No, that's just all you seem to see in this situation.
That's not what I meant.
Can you tell us why you seek certainty on the topic of "God"?
What do you hope to achieve by having such certainty one way or another?
And this is supposed to scare me off or something?
no
but you know were I coming from
now prove me wrong
Ah, all that certainty about uncertainty ... makes the whole thing suspicious.
as I thought
what we have here is simply no desire to understand or have knowledge of our , our , meaning , Human past , Ancient past
so many pass it off as , inconsequential
it is so far from the truth , its troublesome
because of the lack of knowledge , of the Ancients , the bible dictates our thinking upon religion , and religion will be our down fall
I'm not proving anything - I'm highlighting what it means to be falsifiable. Some people do not understand.
Because some people do not place belief/trust/faith in that which has no proof, or at least no possibility of proof.
Not with regards what is falsifiable or not - only with regard whether one is scientific or not.
Sure - when discussing practical things. But when regarding the pure conceptualisation of a concept, and whether it is falsifiable or not... there is no practice... just principle.
They were, that is true.
Perhaps, although some sects make it their mission to convert, and feel it is what God wants, so far from taking on the whole responsibility - they feel it has been delegated to them.
Sure it is projection, but I would (obviously) consider it a reasonable one. If you wish to offer something different, or feel there is some deficiency in the analysis, please do state. Just to point out that it is a projection, while highlighting the limitation/weakness such that it not be accepted as fact, would be better served constructively.
Then please do clarify what you meant. If one merely responds with a "you're wrong", it clearly is not as helpful as "you're wrong, and this is why and this is the answer," etc.
I'm not sure I do seek certainty. It would be nice to know one way or other, sure, especially given the influence that believers have on my life - directly and indirectly (my family all believe, politicians are led by their beliefs etc). It always good to know whether one is right or wrong.
But I do not seek certainty where I know none can be found. Such would be a futile endeavour.
I merely seek consistency and critical thought on the matter.
it is not so much striving but natural consequences
in x# of years, we might be able to big bang a universe into existence and seed it with life
what god is supposed to have done is not entirely implausible. barring some attributes that are conceptually illogical (?), we could very well evolve to be gods of something somewhere at sometime.
still tho, i suppose sentience might evolve from a semolina sludge given enough time. perhaps a fortuitous mutation might even give rise to an opposable thumb
garcon!
prepare for war